Historically, gay identity has developed through a complex history of definitions and self-definition. As a result of arguments presented to the defense of the social constructionist in explaining the causation for the homosexuality, social constructionist sum it that homosexuality many thing and not one that takes a form of many psychosocial forms that regenerated from three main dimensions: historical conditions of gay individuals, psycho cultural and human potentials for sexual response across life course.
In this issue that relates to homosexuality, essentialism versus social constructionism is seen as a philosophical tug of war that its winner becomes difficult to clearly identify. In this critical outlook of the social constructionism, the approach does not offer alternatives raised by the essentialism instead it asks about the narrative forms and discursive practices that produces and reproduces homosexuals rather than searching for “truths” about homosexuals (Connell and Gorge 2002). The second area that prove a real challenge to tug of war between essentialism and social constructionism is in the method of inquiry into the subject matter “homosexuals”, the essentialists employing biomedical research to unveil the causation for homosexuality is scientific; as a matter of fact therefore, both “homosexuals” and “science” can never be rendered compatible in regard to essentialists theorizing project since this is a social phenomenon (Adam 2007).
These are just excerpts of essays for you to view. Please click on Order Now for custom essays, research papers, term papers, thesis, dissertations, case studies and book reports.